Monday, December 2, 2013

Why the undisputed “rock and roll gods” are among the most overrated acts in music history

Music fans, in a lot of ways, might just be the most delusional people on the planet. Although musical taste is nothing more than an unscientific, 100 percent subjective personal preference, rabid fans of certain acts are convinced that their favorite band is not only the best thing since sliced bread, but so comprehensively great in all regards that if anyone says anything negative about them in the slightest, they have cultural permission to fly off their respective handles and spin into a dizzying rage over something that, fundamentally, is completely meaningless.

Case in point? Try saying “The Beatles suck,” in a public forum, and which what happens. It doesn’t matter how many valid points you throw out there, some people have conditioned their minds to accept their favorite musicians’ alleged “greatness” as an absolute truth, and even THINKING about questioning that alleged “greatness” is enough for violent blowback.

Regarding the popular consensus concerning Led Zeppelin, I will give ground on one thing: yes, I do believe that they were rather talented musicians. Jimmy Page was a virtuoso, Robbie Plant could peel paint off walls with his voice, John Bonham was a mean drummer and John Paul Jones…well, sometimes, you could hear him on their records every now and then. While the boys in Led Zep were no doubt a talented bunch of chaps, I think their status as sound musicians tends to overshadow a much more condemnatory aspect of the group -- mainly, the fact that MOST of their music sucked, they were downright awful people as individuals, and they done so much musical theft that they ought to move to Pittsburgh…you know, with them being stealers and all. Deemed rock and roll gods by a hypocritical press that initially mocked them, Led Zeppelin has become something of an artificially inflated mega-group, a quartet of metal titans that produced NOTHING but musical fury, when the truth of the matter is, they were hardly the balls-out megaliths so many souls today like to think they were.

The Hammer of the Gods, you say? Well, here’s five contrarian counterpoints that demonstrate the truth about Led Zep, proving once and for all that they were a lot more “so-so” than they were Zoso…

REASON NUMBER ONE:

Half of their discography flat out blows.

There are two points where I am willing to admit defeat here; “Led Zeppelin II” and “Led Zeppelin IV” are both truly iconic rock and roll records, and not even I can deny their import on popular culture. That said, the rest of their discography is a jumbled bag, which ranges from mostly mediocre to flat out embarrassing.

Their first and third albums are mostly cluttered with filler, with perhaps two or three decent songs and everything else consisting of lukewarm, easily forgettable tracks. This is especially true of “Led Zeppelin III,” which is noteworthy for “Immigrant Song” and absolutely nothing else -- unless you like generic folksy crap and drab remakes of already drab remakes, of course.

“Houses of the Holy” and “Physical Graffiti” were both chaotic messes of records (more on those two later), and their last three studio albums -- “Presence,” “In Through the Out Door,” and “Coda” -- are largely considered pure shit by the group’s own fans. And then there’s “The Song Remains the Same” -- trust me, the less said about that train wreck, the better. So, out of ten albums taken from the band’s heyday, just two are genuine genre classics, whereas the other 80 percent of their works are either overrated or just straight up garbage. All in all, that’s a pretty low ratio of great to shit, especially when allegedly lesser bands like The Stooges, The Ramones, Motorhead and Black Sabbath were rattling off all-time classics, one after the other, during the exact same period.

Of course, the band didn’t need half a record side to produce unnecessarily meandering nonsense. Periodically, the band like to forsake its bluesy-rock-occult tones for more, uh, diverse territory, which chiefly includes some downright cringe-worthy attempts to replicate James Brown, Bob Marley and Stevie Wonder. And if there’s anything out there more embarrassing than a bunch of limeys pretending to be R&B artists? Modern science has yet to discover it.

REASON NUMBER THREE:

Their lyrics were just plain stupid.

The boys in Led Zeppelin may have been some fairly talented musicians, but they sure as hell couldn’t write lyrics worth a toot. Listening to the Led Zep discography is like listening to a lovelorn Dungeons and Dragons player constantly switching up from Tolkien to sock hop -- if the band isn’t singing about icy tundras and wizards, then Robert Plant is probably yelping “baby” for the four millionth time or making some on-the-nose reference to his own schlong. If you’re looking for insightful, politically or socially aware lyrics from Led Zep, the best you’re going to get, I am afraid, are lines about various fruits serving as stand-ins for sexual fluids.

But don’t think this is just my individual opinion, though. The fact of the matter is, music critics have been savaging Led Zeppelin for decades, pointing out pretty much the exact same faults I’ve already trotted out. Here are just a few highly critical remarks about the band’s oeuvre over the years:

“Jimmy Page, around whom the Zeppelin revolves, is, admittedly, an extraordinarily proficient blues guitarist and explorer of his instrument's electronic capabilities. Unfortunately, he is also a very limited producer and a writer of weak, unimaginative songs, and the Zeppelin album suffers from his having both produced it and written most of it (alone or in combination with his accomplices in the group).”

“Robert Plant, who is rumored to sing some notes on this record that only dogs can hear, demonstrates his heaviness on "The Lemon Song." When he yells "Shake me 'til the juice runs down my leg," you can't help but flash on the fact that the lemon is a cleverly-disguised phallic metaphor. Cunning Rob, sticking all this eroticism in between the lines just like his blues-beltin' ancestors!”

“Unfortunately, precious little of Z III's remaining hysteria is as useful or as effectively melodramatic. "Friends" has a fine bitter acoustic lead, but gives itself over almost entirely to monotonously shrill Plant breast-beatings. Rob, give a listen to Iggy Stooge.”

“In the same way that the Rolling Stones evolved into a senior, "safe" bizarro-perversion band, Led Zeppelin has become a senior, "safe" heavy-metal band. But by its very nature safety cannot coexist with heavy-metal fire and macho intensity (or bizarro-perversion, for that matter), which is probably why Houses of the Holy is one of the dullest and most confusing albums I've heard this year."

To be fair, those are just opinions of lone individuals, but their critiques, I believe, remain quite valid to this day. And while said remarks rest solely in the domain of subjectivity, there’s one area in particular that even the most ardent of Led Zep fans have to admit their ‘boys have fouled up, in the worst possible way…

REASON NUMBER FOUR:

They were unabashed plagiarists.

All music is derived from earlier music. That much, we can all agree upon. That said, a large chunk of Led Zeppelin’s discography stretches well over the line of “derivation,” into the field of outright thievery. In fact, there’s probably never been a band that’s prospered so much off the fruits of other’s material -- the gods of metal, they may not be, but Led Zeppelin sure as hell remain the undisputed gods of song theft to this very day.

For starters, their first album ALONE featured six tracks that were blatant swipes of other artists’ works. “Babe I’m Gonna Leave You” and “Dazed and Confused,” perhaps we could write off as being “unacknowledged” cover tunes, but that still doesn’t prevent the band from filling up more than half of their first record with unabashed lyrical and musical thievery.

“Your Time is Gonna’ Come?” -- Swiped from Traffic’s “Dear Mr. Fantasy.” Well, at least the boys didn’t just change one word in the original song's title like they did for the first three tracks before attempting to pass it off as their own material, I suppose.

And the band’s most iconic song? Something tells me Jimmy Page listed to the Spirit song “Taurus” quite a few times before penning “Stairway to Heaven.”

Of course, there are plenty more examples -- “In My Time of Dying” and “When the Levee Breaks,” among them, are unaccredited “odes” to previously recorded tracks -- but I think you get the gist of it. Baby, I ain’t fooling…those Led Zep chaps sure did know how to prosper off the works of others, all right!

REASON NUMBER FIVE:

They were downright horrible human beings.

Ok, so their music, taken as a whole, was more crap than excellence. And they had a tendency to record really, really overlong songs, with really stupid and clumsy lyrics. Those aren’t crimes, of course. Then again, they did plagiarize a large portion of their discography, which IS a crime, but since they settled most of those matters in court, I suppose you can overlook some of their indiscretions in that category.

That said, even if you’re the most hardcore Led Zep fan in the world, you really can’t excuse the boys in the group for being among the most deplorable people to ever become multimillionaires via the recording industry. Where to begin with these depraved chaps, really?

Yes, we’ve heard the “mud shark” story a billion times, but there’s quite a few other stories out there about the group that, somehow, have yet to make the same impression on people.

The band, as a whole, were about as morally conscionable as Hell’s Angels with terminal cancer. With their copious drug abuse, groupie assaults -- more than a few that border on sex crimes -- not to mention their super depraved trysts with minors (which very much WERE sex crimes), Led Zeppelin are at the center of some of the most disgusting scandals in rock and roll history. So what if the band recorded a couple of “killer” tunes, is your reverence for that music really enough to overlook the fact that the band associated with known gangsters and murderers, were managed by a man that (allegedly) enjoyed humiliating women by urinating on them and were complicit in the secret abuse of children for years on end?

Your perspectives on the band may not change knowing the above information, but for me? There’s definitely a feeling I get when I look to the band…and that’s absolute nausea.

47 comments:

I could never stand even a half of a second of Led Zeppelin's (Dred Crapellin) ''music''! I can't stand how most of their songs I have had the displeasure of hearing are just banging around noise,with no beautiful melodies and harmonies like The great Beatles had even in their great rock songs,and Robert Plant screaming and screaching most of the time,not singing great with the great singing voices of John Lennon and Paul McCartney or even Roger Daltry and all three had great rock screams unlike Robert Plant.

The Boston Globe has an online article from March 2009,called I Confess I Don’t Like… written by all of their music critics and Luke O’Neil wrote that when people talk of classic bands they don’t like they’re really speaking in coded language.He said for example “I don’t like The Beatles.” is the same as saying,”I’m a liar” he said but when I say I don’t like Led Zeppelin there’s no subtext.He then says a lot of it has to do with Robert Plant’s fiendish helium-powered caterwauling. He says he tends to prefer bands with vocalists not police sirens in tight pants.He also said the lyrics which run the gamut unimaginative doggerel to too-imaginative fantasy goofs don’t help.

He then says sure they inspired a lot of great bands,but should we not then hold them accountable for the thousands of downright awful imitators they’ve inspired? Rememner that whole hair metal thing in the 80’s? He says who do you think put the bustle in those dudes hedgerow? And grunge? He says that was basically goateed Led Zeppelin on Smack.

And I know it's off topic,but Ozzy Osbourne has always been a huge Beatles fan,since he was a teenager including their early music which came out when he was a teenager and he even picked She Loves You as one of the greatest songs of all time for Rolling Stone Magazine,and he loves Sgt Pepper

Robert Plant was very creative with the lyrics he wrote for Led Zeppelin. He used tough words that not many artists use and he spoke of wonderful things in his songs with Led Zeppelin. I bet none of you have ever heard any of their songs before. If you pay attention to any of the lyrics and/or instruments they are wonderful. Bonzo (John Bonham) was the best drummer in the history of ALL music, and I am not just saying that because I very much like Led Zeppelin. If you watch their song "Moby Dick" live, it will amaze you because of how well John B. played the drums. Most of these things you are saying that each member did is untrue, they are just rumors. Yes, maybe Robert Plant said he liked "spook music", but everyone makes mistakes with their words and say stupid things without knowing. Each individual member was very talented. Can you play guitar as well as Jimmy Page? Because he was an AMAZING guitarist. Can you play the drums like Bonzo while using four drum sticks like he did? I don't think so. Can you play multiple instruments like John Paul Jones? Maybe or maybe not. Can you sing and come up with wonderful lyrics like Robert Plant aka THE GOLDEN GOD? I think not. Now, can you put this all together to make wonderful, amazing, bad ass songs like Stairway To Heaven, Kashmir, Whole Lotta Love, When The Levee Breaks, hmm lets see, Since I've Been Loving You? No. You spoke your opinion, now I give you mine.

Jimmy Page played an awful lot of mistakes on his records, and fans and moderate appreciateurs are split in half. The plagiarism thing isn't just a coincidence, they didn't just write songs in the mould of their influences, some of them are barely rehashes with most of the key lyrics recycled; Led Zeppelin cannot lay claim to Whole Lotta Love (which was the most well-known riff throughout the 70s and early 80s, as they used it as the theme to Top of The Pops).

Robert Plant was very creative with the lyrics he wrote for Led Zeppelin. He used tough words that not many artists use and he spoke of wonderful things in his songs with Led Zeppelin. I bet none of you have ever heard any of their songs before. If you pay attention to any of the lyrics and/or instruments they are wonderful. Bonzo (John Bonham) was the best drummer in the history of ALL music, and I am not just saying that because I very much like Led Zeppelin. If you watch their song "Moby Dick" live, it will amaze you because of how well John B. played the drums. Most of these things you are saying that each member did is untrue, they are just rumors. Yes, maybe Robert Plant said he liked "spook music", but everyone makes mistakes with their words and say stupid things without knowing. Each individual member was very talented. Can you play guitar as well as Jimmy Page? Because he was an AMAZING guitarist. Can you play the drums like Bonzo while using four drum sticks like he did? I don't think so. Can you play multiple instruments like John Paul Jones? Maybe or maybe not. Can you sing and come up with wonderful lyrics like Robert Plant aka THE GOLDEN GOD? I think not. Now, can you put this all together to make wonderful, amazing, bad ass songs like Stairway To Heaven, Kashmir, Whole Lotta Love, When The Levee Breaks, hmm lets see, Since I've Been Loving You? No. You spoke your opinion, now I give you mine.

Saying that Led Zeppelin is overrated is...foolish. the band reeked of talent and innovation. I'll leave it t that. Oh, and if you think the members of Led Zeppelin were the only musicians, or people for that matter, abusing drugs or having weird sex in the late 60's / early 70's you're insane.

Lol, innovative? Please explain. Do you do think that they were the first English band to play American Blues louder and faster? Do you actually believe they were more creative than Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Townsend/Daltrey or Waters/Gilmore? What did they do that Hendrix, Cream and the Kinks hadn't done before them?There's a huge difference between covering a song while giving credit to the original creator and changing a few lyrics/chords and passing it off as your own work. If you can't see that then I must question your own mental state.

LOL. No they weren't the first. They were just the fucking best at it. Blues is the same fucking thing over and over...it's the performers' interpretation that is probably, well, 90% of what matters. And Led Zeppelin was awesome at it. So awesome at it, in fact, I don't give a flying fuck that their first album was a bunch of blues standards reworked to varying degrees. The thing is a masterpiece. Can you find an album that actually sounds like that also predates it (I'm sure you'll say something stupid like Cream, and that just proves you are a stroke victim who ran the clock too long before getting hit with the TPA). Has anyone here ever listened to jazz in their fucking life? How many fucking times can you play Round Midnight before the author of this article comes around talking a lot of shite about capitalizing on other musicians' work.

Reason #6 They absolutely suck live. Their live shows are just a boring mess of garbage. Luckily for them their fans were so wasted they couldn't tell. Playing a guitar with a violin bow is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen a guitar player do. Just go to youtube and compare a live Zeppelin video to anything from a real band like Skynyrd and you'll see there's no comparison. Skynyrd blows them away and they didn't have to steal their music because they had real talent.

Skynyrd songs all sound the same because they never experimented with any instruments. A band like AC/DC sucks live because you can absolutely rely on every song basically being an extended version of the studio take. And finally what does the almighty Ed Van Halen offer but endless odious guitar wank, even when he writes pop fluff that blows "Karma Chameleon" off the pop charts in 1984, he still simply must wank hysterically if even for a few seconds, no matter what. That new "hit" "Tattoo" was a sequel to "Jump" and sure enough, it had some wank, good golly. And lets not forget DLRs monkey howls, that was the essence of his live singing.Granted Zep had a few hits and misses, but the author praises Black Sabbath as an alternative? Hahaha?

HALF THEIR DISCOGRAPHY IS TRASH!?!?!?!?! HAVE YOU EVER LISTENED TO LED ZEPPELIN I OR PHYSICAL GRAFFITI?! EVERY SINGLE SONG KICKS MAJOR FUCKING ASS. HOW MANY MORE TIMES IS THE COOLEST SHIT EVER!!!! youre obviously an idiot. go fuck yourself.

Led Zep has only one song that works, and that is (you guessed it) Stairway to Heaven. All the rest of their discography sits in the range from 'ok' to outright carp. Trust me, I really have tried to listen to more of there music, but it just grinds on terribly (that includes Kashmir). This is probably why the media today still follows the likes of Jagger or McCartney, but not really Plant or Page.

too many haters in the world .wish i could rise above all this .I like Led Zeppelin Id Even Say they are my favourite band Along with Alice In Chains and Pantera and King Crimson .some of the information given in this article may be true ..but im cool with it .

The Author is trying too hard to be edgy here and often comes off as a blowhard. The only segment which has its merits is the "plagiarism section" but even there are holes there. The last argument is the most lack luster and completely dismissible because your dismissing music based on the people who created it and not on the music itself. That's like if I walked into a room and said I don't like the color because the man who painted it is an ass. All in all not enough evidence to convince and mostly bland simple arguments. Suggest revising

1. Half of their discography does not flat out blow. Each album explores diverse musical territory, and the musicianship is top notch. There are common threads running through their music, but like most great bands, each album is distinctly different than any of their other albums.

2. Yes, they did borrow lyrics on some songs and even some musical elements. And they did not dole out proper credit where they should have in some instances, and later paid for it. But for each song that this was the case, there are 10 startlingly original offerings. Black Dog, The Song Remains The Same, Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, Ten Years Gone, Fool In The Rain, What Is And What Should Never Be, Out On The Tiles, In The Light, etc. just to name a few. These songs are as original as anything any of the other monster bands of the era have put out.

3. Jimmy Page was not so much a thief as he was a re-interpreter. He would take a riff like Nobody's Fault But Mine and transform it into something quite a bit different. This is how music gets created in the real world. All great artists, including the Beatles, Stones, Bowie, and many others, did this. They are called musical influences. In fact, it could be argued that no musical inspiration is "totally original". I think where Zeppelin got into trouble was more the lyrics. But as far as Page goes, if you and I had a nickel for every guitarist that came after him that copped one of his riffs, we wouldn't be here doing this. The list of guitarists that cite him as an influence is huge. Everyone knows the influence this man had.

4. The idea that the lyrics sucked is also wrong. I do like bands with intense lyrics (Sabbath, Rush, Floyd, Beatles, etc.), but at the same time, on some level, all of this can be seen as some degree of pretentiousness as well. Especially when you consider rock and roll was founded on the blues, with a lot of lyrics about sex and relationships gone wrong. And what is wrong with singing about women anyway? Are we suddenly so puritanical? But even with this being said, Robert Plant did write some interesting and unique lyrics as well. Stuff like In The Light, Carouselambra, Kashmir, Stairway, and a number of others - all hinted at something more to the man than just getting laid.

5. They were horrible human beings? This seems a bit harsh. Who hasn't gotten drunk or too high and done stupid shit? I am sure if all the dumb crap most people here have done in our lives made the news, people would distort this into we are "horrible human beings". In fact, I admit it - I am probably a horrible human being by many standards. But if you think the members of Black Sabbath, or The Stooges, or The Ramones checked ID's at the door and never banged a bird that was under legal age, well the only word I can think to describe this is.....delusional.

6. To quote Rolling Stone, which is about as establishment as it gets, as an authority on anything, does not present a convincing argument. In fact, if anything, it proves the opposite point - that Led Zeppelin, despite their popularity, never stood for the status quo. They were the largest ever "cult band". No singles, terrible panning by the critics, but still outsold just about everyone.

I give you props for loving Black Sabbath though. I saw them again just the other night in Phoenix, and they were awesome, although the set was only 14 songs, and they didn't touch the Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage albums, they did play Hand of Doom and After Forever, so that was pretty cool.

SOOOO GLAD SOMEone has the balls/audacity/friggin NERVE to just flat-out SAY what do many of us have thought for decades---Led Zep truly SUCK!!' The plagiarism, blatant as Hell, the caterwauling/posing bullshit, ALL of it...I don't know ANYONE who hasn't been SICK OF, for MANY years, the US's coast-to-coast radio's "Zep-9-clock-hour'..in terms of musicality/versatility, top-whatever-sellers, originality, longevity, NONE of it, they truly SUCK !!!

I would like to let it be known that while I do respect this author for saying something that may not be popular opinion, much of this argument is extremely flawed and close minded. I am going to discuss the claims made in the "reason #1" argument. In the first claim it is stated that half of their discography flat out blows. Now this is clearly is opinion, and it would be my opinion as well to say that all of their discography kicks ass (except Coda which was produced after the band broke up anyway). I can't sit here and argue over something completely opinionated, but I would like to point out what bands led Zeppelin is compared to here. First of all Black Sabbath, alongside Zeppelin, pioneered heavy metal and were extremely important to the development of rock. However, After their first few albums, they continued to produce similar heavy metal tunes over and over again. Similar to Sabbath, The Ramones revolutionized a genre as well, punk. Now I could the the close minded-genre card here that the author does and say that an entire genre sucks. I personally am not a fank of punk, but I respect it as an important movement in rock history. If you wonder what I am talking about, it is indirectly stated in this article that folk music is drab. Without folk music, we would have literally none of the popular music we have today. And that "generic folksy drab" that Led Zeppelin displyed on tracks like "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You," they were able to bring out this beautiful tune into a heavy-metal masterpiece that none of the other bands listed on this article were able to do. I just find it rather odd that this author suggests Motorhead a better replacement for Led Zeppelin when they do not have nearly the strength of discography as Led Zeppelin. They didn't redefine any genres are have nearly as many "memorable classics" as Led fucking Zeppelin.

Deep Purple and Captain Beyond blow them away ,... David Bowie early 70's albums have WAY MORE imagination ,... The Who admittedly aren't as talented musically but have way WAY BETTER VASTLY SUPERIOR SONGS ,.. RUSH Blow them away ,.. The Doors compete well with them ,.. Hendrix does hard rock like them ,..and did it way before them ,..Janis Joplin and Jeff Beck albums largely did their sound already ,..and well before them,, The Beatles Songwriting absolutely obliterates them,, Zappa is funnier and more talented and ironic than them ,.. ditto the Kinks ,.. yeah ,..Zep is way over-rated but LZ 1, 2, and Four cannot be denied as pretty fuckin' rad music ,.. that is a "Safe zone' to get high and hit on chicks and be cool ,...You can't Do that to The Who Tommy ,.. ( A Lot of Pink Floyd is like this too ) ,..."Safe" Music ,..non threatening ,..

I think the strength of the Zep detracotors is their ability to amalgamate what they hear (the music) to what they have heard (the rumours about the band) to stimulate their opinions about the band being poor musicians, poor musical writers and bad people. What weakens their arguments is the band members obvious talent, their fans devotion to their music and their examples of altruism which doesn't fit well with the critics pandering of the band as people (ticket sales from a concert in Hiroshima, Japan were donated to the atomic bomb survivors of WW2 and Jimmy Page's charitable contributions to Brazil's poverty stricken children to name two). Listen to Page and Plant's renderings of their music in the 'No Quarter' concerts and you can see what creative geniuses these 2 Led Zep front men really are. And their early concerts were tight, powerful and explosive. They should have credited those artists from whom they were influenced in many of their early works but I think that wasn't generally done at that time when the songs that were borrowed were so substantially rewritten (not to mention that those who were borrowed from usually had themselves borrowed from previous artists who were often unknown).I guess what really bothers Zep critics is the legion of fans whose unwavering devotion to the band and their music juxtaposes the critics' contention that Led Zep is crap. Millions of consumers can't be wrong!!!

Led Zeppelin are best in the studio...after seeing many videos of their live concerts, the ONLY conclusion is that they suck live, and I suspect it is because of their drug/alcohol usage, and lack of decent living at the time. And now I suspect they're too old (or dead) to be able to play most of their songs well in or out of the studio. Great studio band for sure, great tunes, find lyrics...but live showmen, no not really.

My response was to, among other comments, the writer's statement that Led Zep were 'bad people. When you take 4 talented musicians and add fame, booze and drugs you likely will create bad behaviour at times but calling them bad people belies the facts. And I disagree with your statement that, "just because any given entity is 'followed by millions' does NOT make an entity quality". I think that's exactly what makes them quality. I'll give you a 10 year old reunion concert 27 years after the band's breakup, raise you 20 million ticket requests and challenge you to explain why this population equivalent of a small country would strive to see'crap'. Your opinion is your opinion. So are the opinions of millions of others. And Zep didn't blast onto the stage as an act that sucked live except maybe in the critics' eyes who likely saw the band as some sort of contrivance unlike the club bands of the day like The Beatles or The Stones; their skill and energy and availability in the concert circuit propelled them to the heights that they achieved. Sure their shows were lacking at times. substance misuse and fatigue were likely going to cause that. But they were certainly way more than a studio band; WAY MORE.

Well, I agree that Lep Zeppelin is overrated in comparison with much more creative and innovative British bands from the sixties and early seventies: like The Who, Kinks, King Crimsom, Family, Colosseum....... also I don't think that they were a very good live group. The Allman Brothers Band, Gratefuld Dead, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix Experience in their heydays set standards for masterful improvisation and musicianship on stage of which Led Zep could only dream of.

But I still like the debut Led Zep I from early 1969. I think it is by far their best album and much better than every other Led Zep release. II, III, IV, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffi, How the West was Won and everything else from this Band is truly overrated in my eyes. But not Led Zep I - which is in one league with 'Tons of Sobs' from Free, released in early 1969, too; both albums stood the test of time and are rightly considered influential classics....

I understand that Zep were improvising all the time. One would go off in a direction and the others would be right there by intuitive precision. I think their later shows certainly suffered due to substance misuse and other factors but I also understand that their early shows were explosive and memorable for the quality, technique and volume.

Memorable for "quality, technique & volume" are especially the late sixties/early seventies concerts of The Who by comparison. The Who were harder, wilder, louder and more cohensive on stage in their heydays. The Led Zep members were good individually - but failed to play so tight together as the Who or the Allman Brothers Band or the Rolling Stones during the same time.

Grateful Dead & The Allman Brothers in 1969/79/71 were great in improvisation - Led Zep wa always limited in improvisation on stage; outside the studio walls they were even more overrated....

There is no live recording from Led Zep from any era which is so mindblowing as 'Live at Leeds' (1970) or 'Live at The Filmore East' (1970) or 'Colosseum Live' (1971) or 'Roxy & Elsewhere' (Zappa & Mothers, 1973). Even 'How The West was Won' is pale by comparison.....

Can a Zep fan please explain to me why most of their albums sound like they have the shittiest most amateurest mixing in the industry? Most of their songs sound like garbage because of shit recording/mixing. If it's supposed to give it "personality", to me it's like a kid who thinks cranking out the overdrive is cool and all of the shitty noise his amp makes sounds "cool".

About Me

Greetings, Intraweb travelers! My name is Jimbo X (an unusual surname, I know...I think it's Greenlandic) and I'm your kindly proprietor of IIIA. You're probably wondering what the intent of this site is, so that makes two of us. I suppose it's an info-dump for all of the stuff that I find fascinating/irksome about American culture and society, so you'll find a nice jumble of high culture snobbery and low culture sleaze here. It's also a place for me to rant, rave and ramble about all sorts of things that matter and don't matter, so prepare yourself for some heavy-handed bloviating about politics and consumption. Well, that, and lots of stuff about video games and junk food. The things that matter the most obviously.